[Zon]

I would suggest you both tone down your rhetoric and hyperbole.

I will expose a person's intent to deceive readers where I find it, thank you very much. See post 904.

I would suggest you both cool off for abit and approach your issues with abit less heat and more clearity of the reason instead of blinding emotional attachment to your own particular personal views.

I will not cater to a person that has been exposed for their intent to deceive. That's an honest principle. If you want to compromise honest principle that's your choice. Just as it is each person's choice of whether to vote for the lesser of evils that always begets evil. You do your thing, I'll do mine. Know this, I will not cater to those that are dishonest. Seldom will I cater to a person that chooses to cater to persons that are dishonest, especially when they ask me to compromise honest principles.

[Technogeeb]

I will expose a person's intent to deceive readers where I find it, thank you very much. See post 904.

Yes, post 904, where you claim that a calculation based on an arbitrary "poverty level" is a safeguard instead of the flaw it quite clearly is, and called my pointing out your intellectual folly "dishonest" and "failed character development".

The system that you are advocating is fundamentally flawed, and it is your refusal to accept those flaws which shows that you are the one being intellectually dishonest, perhaps even to yourself. You still refuse to admit that a government handout (regardless of the actual amount) delivered to every household in the United States is socialism.